Five Ways Obama Tanked Employment

President Obama’s defenders are taking to the airwaves to rebut the charge that his actions have caused the dire employment figure we see today. The rebuttals mirror those the President is making, and they sure don’t lack in audacity.

Some of the president’s enablers, for example, continue to claim that the unemployment rate is the fault of George W. Bush (even though it has been steadily rising two and a half years after Mr. Bush left office). Others say it is the structural result of deindustrialization. A third excuse making the rounds asserts that stalled talks over raising the debt ceiling have caused uncertainty and made businesses not hire.

Let’s quickly review the record. Here are five ways that President Obama’s actions have directly contributed to Friday’s dismal jobs report, which included a rise in unemployment to 9.2%, the news that only 18,000 jobs had been created in June in a country of 300 million people, that wages have declined and that 250,000 people left the job market entirely.

Stimulus package—The nearly $1 trillion boondoggle failed to stimulate, as we all now know, but made government grow beyond its means. Most of the stimulus bill was filled with the usual government pork or repeating failed policies of the past such as “shovel-ready” projects. Very few provisions were pro-growth and worked to encourage companies to create new, permanent jobs. Some provisions, such as increased unemployment benefits, unfortunately increase the duration of unemployment. The bottom line is that the stimulus bill was based on the flawed economic assumption that governments can spend their way back to prosperity and growth. The government stimulus bill did not create jobs; instead it filled job creators with fears of future tax hikes or more borrowing, and thus future artificially high interest rates.

Obamacare—It took the Administration and the Democratic-held Congress a year and half to ram this piece of legislation down the throat of the American people, time that could have been spent fixing the employment picture. Worse yet, Obamacare imposes vast and expansive new regulations and made labor costs uncertain. Many businesses have said that they are not going to hire permanent workers until they understand exactly how much Obamacare is going to cost their business and raise employment expenses. Other businesses are not sure how the new Obamacare regulations impacts their bottom line, which means they are going to sit tight instead of expanding.

Frank-Dodd Financial Bill—The heavy-handed Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill not only placed needless burdens on small as well as large financial institutions, but has deterred investment by imposing ill-defined restrictions on those who want to invest in the economy. And it did so without addressing the real causes of the financial crisis.

Environmental Protection Agency regulation—Unable to get Congress to pass Cap and Trade, with its skyrocketing electric rates, the Obama EPA is skinning the cat another way—mandating costly regulation. The EPA is implementing a lineup of electric-industry regulations, including the already in-force, but-as-yet-unspecified new CO2 rules, that promise higher rates, less reliability, and a sketchy future business environment. It’s no great surprise that firms haven’t turned up the throttle on hiring and expansion.

Regulatory Assault on Employers—The Administration’s enforcement agencies view employers as lawbreakers who need to be brought in line. Within the Department of Labor the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Wage and Hour Division (WHD) have ramped up enforcement spending while cutting back programs that help employers understand and comply with the law. Obama’s Solicitor of Labor emphasizes the Labor Department’s focus on litigation against employers. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is twisting the law into pretzels to facilitate union organizing, going so far as to file charges against Boeing for creating jobs in a non-union state. Obama’s message to employers has been clear: “We suspect you are breaking the law and we will get you.” Small wonder they are not hiring.

As we moved from Reagan to Obama, we slowly moved from a president in perfect harmony with American principles, to one that is in perfect dissonance with them.
Reagan – a true believer in empowering the individual over the state.
Bush (either) a false believer in enhancing the individual's power. (he compromised with the left)
Clinton – a false believer in enhancing the state's power. (He was a leftist, but not dependable to the left)
Obama – a true believer in enhancing the state's power over the individual.

Also any business <50 employees has exactly ZERO cost or mandates under the law, all they will have is positives that come from Guaranteeed Issue, no Pre Ex, the Exchanges offering more options, better prices and service, small biz tax credits (already available) and the ability to use any subsidies the employees are eligible for t offset their costs.

Your repetition of right wing talking points is unfortunate as t hey have no basis in fact but then again you are the right wing's think tank.

That simply isn't so.
It's 50 full-time EQUIVALENT employees, which requires you to use their dandy formula to decide if you meet that standard. http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/Docume…
Then, if you do meet that standard, you have all the other dandy things to worry about, like the fact that the employee's share of premiums cannot exceed "9.5% of their household income" (page 4). Note that's HOUSEHOLD income. How in the world is my husband's employer going to know what our total household income is? So, they go by making sure it's not more than 9.5% of his income, you say. Nope, sorry. What if I sell Avon and I take a loss one year, bringing down our total household income? Now, my husband's employer gets penalized?
And, if you think that other employers aren't being suckered for this, even small employers, you are strongly mistaken. What I gave above was an example, my husband's employer actually only employs himself, his wife (bookkeeper) and my husband. And yet, our premiums and co-pays have just gone up for the second time in the last year to try to keep our skyrocketing premiums at least SOMEWHAT affordable (though nowhere near what they were).
It's all these things, the uncertainty of how all of this will even be implemented, since they're still writing the rules as they go, that are causing many employers not to hire, and they certainly aren't giving out raises with increasing employment costs, either, much less the fear of their taxes going up.

You clearly have done your homework and have put thought into it. It is too bad that so many on the left either don't know how to research and rely on the left-wing mainstream media, or they don't know how to think and then become useful idiots.

And your blind faith in the left wings progressive agenda has left you clueless and unable to discern bold facts even when then smack you upside your head. The health care reform bill so rightly referred to as Obama Care is filled with sweeping regulations that adversely affect all business. When is the left going to learn that more and bigger government is never a good thing.

Has anybody mentioned that companies cannot wait for the full Obamacare package to take effect so they can cancel their coverage of their employees health insurance? Some companies have already done so. Why would they spend all that money when they can tell their employees to use the government plan? gisele

Well stated. There are certainly more, e.g., using divisive rhetoric to create a hostile environment for small business job creators; and making micro capital accumulation (i.e., personal savings through material sacrifice and thrift) nearly impossible. But then, that's the point of the collectivist: increase general misery to fuel class hatred, violence and greater demands on the state. But, I'm just a citizen (i.e., worker-drone) who David Plouffe says, remains blissful in his ignorance of such lofty matters of philosophy and neo-classical economics. Keep up the good work.

All those points show me is that the job creators as you call them are scared that the obscene rate of return they are used to may be gone and unless the government supports the richest 1% they will not do anything that benefits anyone but themselves fear not facts as usual is driving the republican party and the result is we the people are suffering through it

Wow, 2.5+ years into the failed Obama policies, and you’re still blaming Republicans for the suffering. You must be a real gem to the Democrat Party. I’m sure you’re one of those people who believe that there’s a limited amount of wealth in the world and want the government to give you what you perceive is your share of it.

Temporary acts like the stimulus only kept the ones granted a short relief but the hostile economic arena caused by the mountain of regulations and government agencies and the uncertainty and confusion embedded in the regs such as obamacare, finreg make decisions on how to evaluate profitability of investments and associated hiring too risky.

This article states they have "been steadily rising two and a half years after Mr. Bush left office". Based on data from the Labor department, the unemployment rate in January 2009, (when President Bush left office and President Obama took over) was 7.8%. It peaked at 10.1% in October 2009 and has since come back down to 9.2%. That data alone makes that statement false, because it has come back down and is not steadily rising.

Lets set that aside though and look at the numbers. In the first 30 months of President Obama's term, unemployment went from 7.8%, peaked at 10.1% and is currently sitting at 9.2%. That's a 2.3% increase at the peak and +1.4% delta from the day he took office.

When President Bush took office in January 2001, unemployment was 4.2% (most economists would say this is the optimal level). In his first 30 months, unemployment peaked at 6.3% and dropped to 6.2% in July 2003. That's a 2.1% increase at the peak and a +2% delta in his first 30 months in office. In the 8 years of President Bush's presidency, unemployment went from 4.2% to 7.8%. An increase of 3.6%.

Yes, the jobs numbers suck, but I think it's a little disingenuous to attribute the dismal job situation solely to the Democrat in the White house (and his policies) without looking at the track record of the Republican that preceded him.

If these are the 5 ways that President Obama has stymied the job situation, what was it that President Bush did to grow unemployment by 3.6% during his presidency?

Keep in mind that the number of Public sector jobs increased 8.9% under President Bush and the number of Private sector jobs saw an overall decrease of 5% from its height.

We are discussing here whether these laws have helped or hurt business in creating jobs. To me the question is why does the government have to get involved at all. The gov. should stay out of the way of business. the Constitution does not give the right to congress or gov. to do any o this.

…the devil convinces weakness and that there's no "hope" without him.
First reduce and eliminate the over burdensome regulations and policies closing down businesses so the free market can hire, then get rid of all entitlements of special interests, excluding the elderly all inclusive on down!

It doesn't seem to matter who is in office .. the bureaucracy and the bureaucrats run this county. Partly because of the Unions and those bureaucrat so entrenched in their jobs of telling every one how to live. WE the common sense people .. no longer have a voice in what is going on. Until all Government is decentralized, we don't have a chance of stopping what is going on in D.C. We can't get them to think outside the box .. not one solution has arisen to pay off the national debt. NOT ONE .. oh we're getting a lot of BS and smoke and mirrors .. but no one is talking about bringing the Bureaucracy under control. Until that happens . it's business as usuall in DC

Absolutely spot on. Why can't all conservatives use these 5 items as talking points on what is wrong with the economy like the libs use "two wars and the Bush tax cuts" as the entire reason for our debt problem. The masses hear these liberal talking points repeatedly from every one of them. Then these same libs continue to blame the economy on Bush and the masses have no idea what Obama has done to tank the economy. Please bundle these 5 items in to a clear concise paragraph and get it out there to every republican that goes on any TV or radio show. Repetition is the key to get a message to the masses.

Excellent point. Repeat after me……use these five points and ask Where are the Jobs? Hammer all media with them. For the sake of the free market system and our freedoms, I implore all that read Nancy's reply to forward it to the Republican candidate of their choice.

This has always been the approach of the left…repeat a lie often enough…and the public will start to believe it's the truth. We need to repeat the truth as often as we can…and refute the outright lies openly and often…if we are to have a chance of saving this country. Now if only we can convince the MSM to be fair and balanced…oh right…that's not going to happen! We have to do it ourselves…get the facts and tell everyone you have an oppotunity to educate. Only we will be able to win the next election and create the policies needed to reverse all this damage.

Obama prevented a great depression from occurring thus far and the stimulus bill was a necessity. I agree that more effort should have been spent on job creation but the economy seems to have somewhat stabilized and Jobs are not being lost anymore.

I think if we would have allowed the bubble boys to collapse. We would be in better shape today, than we are. Spending cuts would be in place, the budget would be balanced, And we would be drilling off our shores and no wars. OH! MY! We wouldn't have the Chevy- Volt, or revolt! And the unions they would support their
members with all those dues!!

REASON # 6 that the Obama administration is causing the economy to tank. I am an "oil hawk". I am not in the oil and gas industry orI am not someone who derives income from energy stocks or invests in them but sees our energy policy as another reason our economy has stalled. Our economy is based on the availability of oil. Without cheap or at least less expensive oil, out economy stalls. As oil increases in price so does everything else. Obama's energy policy of no new exploration, no new drilling, no new production is crushing this economy. Not to mention the number of jobs this industry creates but the downstream ramifications of a failed domestic energy policy has a rippling effect on all aspects of our economy. As the suppy of oil worldwide is limited, the oil speculators have no choice but to play that market accordingly, which in turn raises the price of a barrel of oil. If Obama would open up our soil to domestic exploration it would send a message to the speculators and the price would come down based upon the market speculation that more supply will become available.
Another thing to ponder as I am sure I will get rebuttals from the left on this and that is the "huge tax breaks" given to the oil industry. Well to put this in perspective I would like to say mention the "huge tax receipts" that are given to the gov't. For instance, for every gallon of gas that Exxon Mobil sells they make a net profit of 3-4 cents. Now for that same gallon, the gov't (Federal and State combined) extracts close to 40 cents. Now I ask you? Who is ripping off the public?

[…] Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The financial regulation bill has contributed to higher unemployment by imposing needless regulation on small and large financial institutions. It has deterred […]

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Email address

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.